I think this needs a separate thread to get into much further and I was just throwing out some thoughts on the subject since it was mentioned.

The league might like the high floor to encourage parity but how many "have not" owners will be at the table demanding more breathing room, at the same time I'm not sure the teams loaded to the gills with contracts and happy to spend to the cap are going to agree to drop the ceiling by $10 or more mil and then probably asked to drop millions more into revenue sharing.

I think that the have not teams are going to be satisfied with an overall rollback in salaries, as I'm pretty confident in them being whiny enough to demand both a drop in their salary obligations and keeping the parity structure intact.

Likewise, I'm pretty confident that most of the bigger market clubs will be more than happy to cut down on their salary obligations as well.

It may not be as punitive as it was last lockout and maybe as the League goes for a reduction in the player's cut from 57 to 47% they give the bigger clubs breathing room by also demanding an immediate cut in player salaries to match it.

Basically, I don't think you'll go broke betting on the the NHL to engage in a naked cash grab.

I think at the rate revenue is climbing its far greater than they originally anticipated when they signed this deal and at some point it puts too much strain on the lower end clubs who probably aren't seeing any revenue increases (some maybe even less than in 2005)

I think we'll see the reduction plus an increase in revenue sharing look after the smaller teams here. Remember that Gary Bettman has been pretty good in getting teams around the league to toe the party line. If there was a time for big market clubs to not knuckle under, it was in 04-05. This is just more of the same that will line their pockets even more. 7-10% of hockey revenue for the Maple Leafs is a pretty hefty chunk of change.

Should teams be allowed to share the salary of a traded player, or does that run counter to the spirit of a salary capped league?

... it's expected that "salary sharing" will be a topic of conversation — just in time for the next CBA negotiations this summer.

"Eating salary". Under the previous CBA, teams were allowed to absorb a portion of the salary of a player they wanted to move as an enticement to teams interested in said player.

That was eliminated under the current agreement, and has been considered a contributing factor to the reduction of trade activity in recent years, not just at the deadline, but throughout the regular season.

Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke has, in the recent past, suggested the league reconsider this policy, but that request has fallen on deaf ears at league headquarters. Allowing teams to "eat" a portion of a player's salary or contract in a trade would not only allow more movement in the trade market, but make it easier for teams carrying expensive players who no longer fit into their plans...

The "eating salary" proposal is close to the current re-entry waivers clause, with one significant difference: The team that handed out the bad contract will receive compensation for moving that player.

The essential question in all of this is whether it would benefit the NHL.

If there are clear, and limiting, restrictions placed on how and when this devouring of salary can occur, then it's worth investigating.

Teams struggling to reach the cap floor can take on the big contracts of good players rather than handing big contracts to mediocre players during the free-agent frenzy. Or at least they'll have the option.

The solution may be easier said than done, but it's still a worthy topic for the CBA negotiators to discuss, and possibly amend. Burke has a valid argument, and no doubt, this would benefit the Leafs.

HNIC's Elliotte Friedman says the new cap could be up to $72 million next season, which would really open up the market for some clubs. However, CBA negotiations will begin in June an almost certainly go past July 1, when free agency begins -- and when all is said and done, the new CBA could lower the cap to much less than $72 million. So that could lead some team to tight situations in which they have to dump expensive contracts heading into the season, and we might see some pretty interesting trades in the fall.

Also...

A new clause being mulled in the new collective bargaining agreement could prevent teams from burying big cap hits in the minors, and that could really hurt the Toronto Maple Leafs -- among other teams. The Toronto Sun's Steve Simmons points out that Jeff Finger and Colton Orr are both off the books in the minors, and Colby Armstrong, Tim Connolly and Matthew Lombardi could join them at some point.

...with Orr and Finger, there is $4.5 million that doesn't count against the cap, which helps the Leafs. But if the new clause kicks in, then the Leafs may have less to spend in free agency -- especially if the CBA also lowers the cap hit. This might severely limit what they can do this summer.

If they don't allow team to bury contracts in the minors, who is on the books next year, that this will affect the Leafs? Orr & Finger only? Assuming the Leafs don't plan to bury anyone else this summer.

If they don't allow team to bury contracts in the minors, who is on the books next year, that this will affect the Leafs? Orr & Finger only? Assuming the Leafs don't plan to bury anyone else this summer.

Finger's contract expires this summer so that won't be an issue there. I really don't understand how they would ban that practice though. Would any contract with a cap-hit over say $3mil count against the cap even if the player is in the AHL?

More than 50 NHL players — team reps and alternates — are expected to descend upon Chicago for three days starting Monday to sort out the union’s issues and positions in advance of collective bargaining, set to start “imminently” according to both sides.

The contract between players and owners expires Sept. 15. The league has already cancelled its overseas games and teams aren’t holding their September rookie tournaments.

....(the pessimism) is out there, but I hope it doesn’t come to pass,” said Bettman. “You’ve got to understand, there’s a process we have to go with, that we have to deal with. There’s a new executive director. I understand the speculation, but I’m not going to buy into it. We’re going to do what is right in terms of this process.

“We hope it will be quick, quiet and painless.”

The league emerged from the lockout with a salary cap, while the players were promised 57 per cent of hockey-related revenue. While both sides have played their cards very close to the vest, it’s believed the key issues this time will be the percentage players receive, the revenue-generating items that make up “hockey-related revenue” and revenue sharing among teams.

“It’s a whole lot different than last time,” Bettman said.

Donald Fehr told The Canadian Press...“Obviously, what happened in the last round of negotiations is the starting point for this round of bargaining. The players made what can only be characterized as enormous concessions. And so you want to make sure that the players understand what happened the last time and that they take that as the beginnings of where things go from here.”

The team salary cap for the season just passed was $64.3 million. The floor — the least a team can pay in total salary — was $48.3 million, almost $10 million more than the first cap ceiling in 2005-06. Some small-market teams find getting to the floor difficult.

....average value of NHL teams has increased by 47 per cent since the last lockout “but climbing player costs are eroding the sport’s profitability.”

....the league’s 57 per cent salary cap “is too high for some teams to be profitable.”

....the league is looking jealously at the 48 per cent model the NFL agreed to before this past season, or the NBA’s 50-50 revenue split.

Media pestering Fehr on specifics of the NHLPA's bargaining strategies. He's not biting. NHL's Revenue sharing will be a big issue. Don Fehr says the players want a quick resolution in CBA negotiations, but won't make any predictions. Says priority to get deal done.

Why did they wait so long to start? Couldn't they have got this done a while ago? I don't follow these things too closely, but it's been talked about for so long, you'd think they could have put the work in over the past year or so.

All I really care about is if hockey starts on time in October, so I hold hope it does get done quick.

If they don't allow team to bury contracts in the minors, who is on the books next year, that this will affect the Leafs? Orr & Finger only? Assuming the Leafs don't plan to bury anyone else this summer.

Finger's contract expires this summer so that won't be an issue there. I really don't understand how they would ban that practice though. Would any contract with a cap-hit over say $3mil count against the cap even if the player is in the AHL?

That would be an option. But really, these contracts still hamper teams - the Rangers have Redden counting toward their upper limit in the off-season until they are able to waive him again, as an example. So their ability to go out and spend stupid money above the cap during the FA period is limited. Granted, with a cap that has been going up steadily, I guess that hasn't been as much of a deterrent as it could be...

I don't think you'll be able to get the teams to agree to anything like that. One solution I was tinkering with to the whole Wade Redden type issue would be to allow teams to buyout guys that spend the entire season in the AHL with no cap penalty, but at 100% of their remaining salary.

Logged

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan